Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Originally posted by npetreley
You're awfully eager to prove you're among the people described in the challenge as "too ignorant to understand the challenge." First you show that you can't tell a vertebrate from an invertebrate, then you show a transition from planktic foraminifera to planktic foraminifera. If you're going to fall short of something comaprable to reptile-to-mammal transitions, couldn't you at least have started with benthic foraminifera?
Originally posted by blader
#1. You wanted something comparable to reptile to mammal transitions. Show me a invertebrate mammal. You never told us why you didn't vertebrates.
The challenge (for the third time, and still unmet)
Here we go again. These are the goalposts. Have fun. More precision added for the benefit of putts. Here's what I challenge you to provide.
Someone posted this "series" of "transitionals" from reptile to mammal as evidence for evolution.
Now, I must admit these ARE very pretty drawings. Nice use of color. They remind me of the "Learn how to draw cartoons" books. It's cool how you can go from a circle to a cartoon face, step by step. But let's not quibble about drawings, let's assume what you have here is genuine and use it as the standard by which we will measure the degree to which you meet the challenge. The only thing I require that's harder than the above is that I don't want drawings. But as you'll soon see, it will be so easy in other respects that this will be but a minor difficulty to overcome.
THE REAL THING
Here's my challenge. USING PICTURES OF WHOLE FOSSILS, NOT DRAWINGS, provide at least the SAME NUMBER OF GRADUAL STEP BY STEP TRANSITIONS (I count 8 in the above example) with a COMPARABLE DEGREE OF CHANGE BETWEEN STEPS, and as COMPARABLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STARTING AND ENDING SPECIES as as the starting and ending species represented by these drawings.
In order to satisfy the last requirement, you'll need to know as much about the starting and ending species as we do about the ones represented in the drawings. In other words, we're supposedly not guessing that the drawings start with a reptile and end with a mammal -- you supposedly KNOW this to be true. So none of these guesses about whether or not a plant is seed bearing. You either have real, hard evidence or it doesn't belong in the transition. And does everyone understand here that we're not talking about pictures of a snail evolving into a snail, a fruit fly into a fruit fly, a mosquito into a mosquito, A BRACHIOPOD INTO A BRACHIOPOD -- DUH, or a trilobyte evolving into a trilobyte? If not, then you need not apply, since you're too ignorant to understand the challenge.
If any of this is unclear to you, I've enumerated the conditions below for easy reading.
THE BIG EASY
Now, this next part is what should make the challenge REALLY EASY. All you have to do is confine your choice of transitions to plants and invertebrates.
NONE of the fossils can include transitionals that involve KNOWN HYBRIDS. In other words, we're testing in 99.9875% of the fossil record for the kind of descent with modifiction that evolutionists say occurs in 0.0125% of the fossil record, the vertebrates, where hybrids and polyploids are extremely rare. If scientists DON'T KNOW IT IS A HYBRID OR RELATED TO A HYBRID then it's perfectly admissible. If your series includes any transitionals where one or more species is known to natrually cross-breed, then that series is inadmissible.
HOW EASY IS IT?
It should be unbelievably easy. I discovered my data on the number of known fossils was wrong, but according to several creationist sites, invertebrates and plants still likely make up at least 99.9875% of the fossil record, if not more. Regardless, I don't think anyone has any way to argue that this is not the vast majority of the fossil record. So let's look at the odds agian. 99.9% or thereabouts of known species are extinct. 99.9875% or thereabouts of the fossil record is comprised of invertebrates and plants. According to some paleontologists (although they can't seem to make up their minds) there are thousands of wonderful transitionals. One can only assume that most of those thousands of wonderful transitionals must be taken from the invertebrate and plant fossil record, since that's what most of the fossils are.
So you should easily be able to bombard this forum with page after page after page of 8-in-a-series PICTURES OF REAL, WHOLE FOSSILS which meet all of my criteria, which are drawn mostly from what you've already provided.
ONE MORE TIME, WITH FEELING
Okay, now I am perfectly aware that it doesn't matter how clear I've been. You'll move the goalposts and say I did it anyway. But just for the sake of doing this exercise right, let me establish and enumerate the goalposts so you can promptly ignore them and say I changed the rules.
1. INVERTEBRATES AND PLANTS ONLY
2. NO KNOWN HYBRID MORPHOLOGY
3. REAL PICTURES OF FOSSILS, NO DRAWINGS
4. AT LEAST EIGHT IN THE SERIES OF TRANSITIONS
5. COMPARABLE DEGREE OF SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EACH OF THE EIGHT TRANSITIONS AS REPRESENTED BY THE DRAWINGS ABOVE, WITH A CLEAR PROGRESSION FROM STARTING SPECIES TO TARGET SPECIES
6. COMPARABLE DIFFERENCE FROM FIRST TO LAST IN SERIES OF EIGHT TRANSITIONS AS REPRESENTED BY THE DRAWINGS ABOVE (NO LEAVES TO DIFFERENT LOOKING LEAVES -- I REALLY MEAN THE EQUIVALENT OF REPTILE TO MAMMAL)
7. WE KNOW AT LEAST AS MUCH ABOUT YOUR STARTING, ENDING AND INTERMEDIATES AS WE DO ABOUT THE SPECIES IN THE DRAWING (NO GUESSING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE SPECIES LIVED UNDER WATER OR IF IT WAS A SEED BEARING PLANT)
Worried that I'll judge fossils to be more or less comparable than you? Don't. Let the others who see your pictures judge for themselves. Remember, I'm the uneducated idiot here, so it doesn't matter what I think, and your evidence will undoubtedly be so convincing that nothing I say about it should matter anyway.
Last edited by npetreley on 29th July 2002 at 10:22 PM
...not the 99.9% that nobody can find a transitional series for.
Originally posted by npetreley
Simple. Odds. People have provided what they think are vertebrate transitions. Vertebrates make up 0.0125% of the fossil record. So if you can find a handful of clear vertebrate transitions and they aren't simply the product of your imagination making connections that aren't really there, then surely you should be able to find THOUSANDS more comparable transitional series from 99.9875% of the fossil record, shouldn't you? If so, then you've shown that evolution has a solid foundation in the evidence. If not, then any reasonable person would be suspicious about how you're interpreting the data from 0.0125% of the fossil record.
Originally posted by choccy
The similarities between the two statements are striking aren't they? Does anybody think the second quote adequately summarizes the requirements mentioned in the first?
Originally posted by choccy
The similarities between the two statements are striking aren't they? Does anybody think the second quote adequately summarizes the requirements mentioned in the first?
Choccy
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
I agree. I pointed that out to Nick in his last thread about his challenge, but he apparently is willing to ignore that observation and keep rambling on with his challenge as if it is significant or something. Nick's challenge is as relevant and honest as Hovind's.
Originally posted by blader
Of course there's going to be more invertebrates in the fossil record, but that doesn't mean that they will be easier to be found than invertebrates.
I see. So unless I quote the entire challenge every time, that constitutes moving the goalposts. You're a real card, there choc.
Originally posted by npetreley
Spoken like a true failure to meet it.
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Quoth the man who has failed to explain why his challenge matters at all.
It doesn't matter at all if you can't find evidence for macroevolution in 99.9875% of the fossil record?
Originally posted by npetreley
It doesn't matter at all if you can't find evidence for macroevolution in 99.9875% of the fossil record? Fascinating! That's quite a demonstration of faith you have there.
Originally posted by npetreley
It doesn't matter at all if you can't find evidence for macroevolution in 99.9875% of the fossil record? Fascinating! That's quite a demonstration of faith you have there.
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
the appearance (sudden, even) of new taxa continuously over the non-vertebrate fossil record is evidence of macro-evolution.
Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Funny how "failure to produce fine-grained non-hybrid non-vertebrate photos-on-the-internet sequence of transitional fossils" suddenly transformed into "can't find evidence for macroevolution in 99.9875% of the fossil record".
That's quite a demonstration of intellectual dishonesty you have there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?